Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Thomas Hobbes  Thomas Hobbes

theory of Social Contract appeared for the first time in Leviathan published in the
year 1651 during the Civil War in Britain. Thomas Hobbes╆ legal theory is based
on ╉Social contract╊. According to him, prior to Social Contract, man lived in the
State of Nature. Man╆s life in the State of NATURE was one of fear and
selfishness. Man lived in chaotic condition of constant fear. Life in the State of
Nature was ╅solitary╆, ╅poor╆, ╅nasty╆, ╅brutish╆, and ╅short╆.  Man has a
natural desire for security and order. In order to secure selfprotection and self-
preservation, and to avoid misery and pain, man entered Page 2 of 7 into a
contract. This idea of self-preservation and self-protection are inherent in man╆s
nature and in order to achieve this, they voluntarily surrendered all their rights
and freedoms to some authority by this contract who must command obedience.
As a result of this contract, the mightiest authority is to protect and preserve their
lives and property. This led to the emergence of the institution of the ╉ruler╊ or
╉monarch╊, who shall be the absolute head. Subjects had no rights against the
absolute authority or the sovereign and he is to be obeyed in all situations
however bad or unworthy he might be. However, Hobbes placed moral
obligations on the sovereign who shall be bound by natural law.  Hence, it can
be deduced that, Hobbes was the supporter of absolutism. In the opinion of
Hobbes, ╉law is dependent upon the sanction of the sovereign and the
Government without sword are but words and of no strength to secure a man at
all╊. He therefore, reiterated that civil law is the real law because it is
commanded and enforced by the sovereign. Thus, he upheld the principle of
╉Might is always Right╊.  Hobbes thus infers from his mechanistic theory of
human nature that humans are necessarily and exclusively self-interested. All
men pursue only what they perceive to be in their own individually considered
best interests. They respond mechanistically by being drawn to that which they
desire and repelled by that to which they are averse. In addition to being
exclusively self-interested, Hobbes also argues that human beings are reasonable.
They have in them the rational capacity to pursue their desires as efficiently and
maximally as possible. From these premises of human nature, Hobbes goes on to
construct a provocative and compelling argument for which they ought to be
willing to submit themselves to political authority. He did this by imagining
persons in a situation prior to the establishment of society, the State of Nature. 
Hobbes impels subjects to surrender all their rights and vest all liberties in the
sovereign for preservation of peace, life and prosperity of the subjects. It is in this
way the natural law became a moral guide or directive to the sovereign for
preservation of the natural rights of the subjects. For Hobbes all law is dependent
upon the sanction of the sovereign. All real law is civil law, the law commanded
and Page 3 of 7 enforced by the sovereign and are brought into the world for
nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular men, in such a manner, as
they might not hurt but to assist one another and join together against a common
enemy. He advocated for an established order. Hence, Individualism, materialism,
utilitarianism and absolutions are inter-woven in the theory of Hobbes.

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by John Locke  John Locke theory of
Social Contract is different than that of Hobbes. According to him, man lived in
the State of Nature, but his concept of the State of Nature is different as
contemplated by Hobbesian theory. Locke╆s view about the state of nature is not
as miserable as that of Hobbes. It was reasonably good and enjoyable, but the
property was not secure. He considered State of Nature as a ╉Golden Age╊. It was
a state of ╉peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation╊. In that state of
nature, men had all the rights which nature could give them. Locke justifies this by
saying that in the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind was a state of
perfect and complete liberty to conduct one╆s life as one best sees fit. It was free
from the interference of others. In that state of nature, all were equal and
independent. This does not mean, however, that it was a state of license. It was
one not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to
be in one╆s interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there was no
civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws,
was not a state without morality. The State of Nature was pre-political, but it was
not premoral. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state,
and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of
Nature. So, the State of Nature was a ╅state of liberty╆, where persons are free to
pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference and, because of the
Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively
peaceful.  Property plays an essential role in Locke╆s argument for civil
government and the contract that establishes it. According to Locke, private
property is created when a person mixes his labour with the raw materials of
nature. Given the implications of the Law of Nature, there are limits as to how
much property one can own: one is not Page 4 of 7 allowed to take so more from
nature than oneself can use, thereby leaving others without enough for
themselves, because nature is given to all of mankind for its common subsistence.
One cannot take more than his own fair share. Property is the linchpin of Locke╆s
argument for the social contract and civil government because it is the protection
of their property, including their property in their own bodies, that men seek
when they decide to abandon the State of Nature.  John Locke considered
property in the State of Nature as insecure because of three conditions; they are:-
1. Absence of established law; 2. Absence of impartial Judge; and 3. Absence of
natural power to execute natural laws.  Thus, man in the State of Nature felt
need to protect their property and for the purpose of protection of their
property, men entered into the ╉Social Contract╊. Under the contract, man did
not surrender all their rights to one single individual, but they surrendered only
the right to preserve / maintain order and enforce the law of nature. The
individual retained with them the other rights, i.e., right to life, liberty and estate
because these rights were considered natural and inalienable rights of men. 
Having created a political society and government through their consent, men
then gained three things which they lacked in the State of Nature: laws, judges to
adjudicate laws, and the executive power necessary to enforce these laws. Each
man therefore gives over the power to protect himself and punish transgressors
of the Law of Nature to the government that he has created through the compact.
 According to Locke, the purpose of the Government and law is to uphold and
protect the natural rights of men. So long as the Government fulfils this purpose,
the laws given by it are valid and binding but, when it ceases to fulfil it, then the
laws would have no validity and the Government can be thrown out of power. In
Locke’s view, unlimited sovereignty is contrary to natural law.  Hence, John
Locke advocated the principle of -╉a state of liberty; not of license╊. Locke
advocated a state for the general good of people. He pleaded for a
constitutionally limited government. Page 5 of 7  Locke, in fact made life, liberty
and property, his three cardinal rights, which greatly dominated and influenced
the Declaration of American Independence, 1776.

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau  Jean

Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher who gave a new interpretation to the
theory of Social Contract in his work “The Social Contract” and “ Emile”. According
to him, social contract is not a historical fact but a hypothetical construction of
reason. Prior to the Social Contract, the life in the State of Nature was happy and
there was equality among men. As time passed, however, humanity faced certain
changes. As the overall population increased, the means by which people could
satisfy their needs had to change. People slowly began to live together in small
families, and then in small communities. Divisions of labour were introduced,
both within and between families, and discoveries and inventions made life
easier, giving rise to leisure time. Such leisure time inevitably led people to make
comparisons between themselves and others, resulting in public values, leading
to shame and envy, pride and contempt. Most importantly however, according to
Rousseau, was the invention of private property, which constituted the pivotal
moment in humanity╆s evolution out of a simple, pure state into one,
characterized by greed, competition, vanity, inequality, and vice. For Rousseau
the invention of property constitutes humanity╆s ╅fall from grace╆ out of the
State of Nature. For this purpose, they surrendered their rights not to a single
individual but to the community as a whole which Rousseau termed as ╅general
will╆.  According to Rousseau, the original ╅freedom, happiness, equality and
liberty╆ which existed in primitive societies prior to the social contract was lost in
the modern civilisation. Through Social Contract, a new form of social
organisation- the state was formed to assure and guarantee rights, liberties
freedom and equality. The essence of the Rousseau╆s theory of General Will is
that State and Law were the product of General Will of the people. State and the
Laws are made by it and if the government and laws do not conform to ╅general
will╆, they would be discarded. While the individual parts with his natural rights,
in return he gets civil liberties such as freedom of speech, equality, assembly, etc.
Page 6 of 7  The ╉General Will╊, therefore, for all purposes, was the will of
majority citizens to which blind obedience was to be given. The majority was
accepted on the belief that majority view is right than minority view. Each
individual is not subject to any other individual but to the ╅general will╆ and to
obey this is to obey himself. His sovereignty is infallible, indivisible,
unrepresentable and illimitable.  Thus, Rousseau favoured people’s sovereignty.
His natural law theory is confined to the freedom and liberty of the individual. For
him, State, law, sovereignty, general will, etc. are interchangeable terms.
Rousseau╆s theory inspired French and American revolutions and given impetus
to nationalism. He based his theory of social contract on the principle of ╉Man is
born free, but everywhere he is in chains╊. COMPARISION OF THE